4 ms·

> a single mother with 3 kids has to make do with $10,000 a year? Actually, under Murray's proposal, she has to make do with 10k per year plus whatever she can

> a single mother with 3 kids has to make do with $10,000 a year? Actually, under Murray's proposal, she has to make do with 10k per year plus whatever she can earn. If she's earning very, then she's probably doing all the childcare herself and her living costs are not much more than a single, childless woman. If she works full time, then her total income (earned and unearned) will be 30k at minimum. I'm not saying I support the proposal, but I do think your rhetorical question mischaracterizes it.

gizmo 10y ago
The point is when you give the same subsidies to a healthy 22 year old who lives with his parents and a single mother of three, we're dealing with one of two situations: 1) the subsidies are sufficient for both groups to do OK. This is fine in theory, but taxes would have to go up by a lot to have the minimum take care of the needy with the largest expenses. The UBI would have to be closer to 25,000 USD. If it's politically impossible to raise taxes to the level needed to let poor people live in dignity today, then what are the odds the American people sign off on the massive tax hikes needed to fund a non-destitution basic income? 2) the UBI simply isn't sufficient. Some people are getting money they don't need and other people are getting much less than they need just to survive. Every dollar that goes to the first group means there's less for those who really need it. In other words, the proposed system is a cruel dismantling of the welfare state. Raising 3 children is practically a full time job, just one that happens to be unpaid. With the UBI the minimum wage would go away, meaning that the single mother is going to make a few dollars an hour in her part time job. That will barely cover the cost of the car she needs to get to her job, and the cost of the babysitter. The suggestion that being a single mother isn't much more expensive than a being a single young adult is absurd. I really struggle to respond to this. Just think about it: a single person can share an apartment and bike everywhere, enjoy the simple bohemian lifestyle. Being a beach bum doesn't cost anything. Do side jobs and hustle whenever you need a few bucks. The single mother in contrast needs a car and a house with rooms, just to start. That's going to take a big chunk out of the 10,000. Just living nearby a school is already expensive, and not optional. And the children themselves cost money too, in a million little ways. Diapers, clothing, entertainment, food, trips to the doctor, the list is endless. I don't believe I'm misrepresenting the situation, this is just how the math works out. If the UBI means giving money to people who don't really need it then taxes must go up by a lot or the poor are getting a really raw deal.
- avatarlite 10y ago
  From the article: >Or consider the unemployed young man who fathers a child. Today, society is unable to make him shoulder responsibility. Under a UBI, a judge could order part of his monthly grant to be extracted for child support before he ever sees it. The lesson wouldn’t be lost on his male friends. > Or consider teenage girls from poor neighborhoods who have friends turning 21. They watch—and learn—as some of their older friends use their new monthly income to rent their own apartments, buy nice clothes or pay for tuition, while others have to use the money to pay for diapers and baby food, still living with their mothers because they need help with day care. The author seems to be proposing that child support for 3 children can/should be taken from their fathers' UBI grants. Therefore, the mother would receive a larger grant based on her number of children.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Those quotes are about enforcing responsibility and repercussions for unwise decisions, and how that functions as deterrence. Taking money away from the father is framed as punishment, the mother getting money is just a happy coincedence (remember he excludes children from the UBI and then he sketches a scenario where a dad has to lose a lawsuit before having to pay). He doesn't concede that people in some situations simply need more money to live, because that concession would be fatal. After all, if some people need more money than others then you need to do means testing (oh wait, that's what every country is already doing and the root cause of all the inefficiency he seeks to eliminate), which is the exact opposite of the UBI.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    That is certainly correct in many cases but I don't think you can get around gizmo's argument in the general case. The father could not simply leave the mother but for example die in an accident. A one size fits all solution seems really problematic considering the huge differences between personal circumstances.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Assuming the father is a living US citizen whose identity and whereabouts the mother knows, of course. Either way, that doesn't really affect the argument that a BI payment supposed to be a minimum for one person to live off is unlikely to stretch to paying for the food, living space and private health insurance costs for another three, even if another parent's minimum payment is also being garnished to help. The author's arguments you've cited essentially amount to the view that children of single parents should be punished for their parents' life decisions. It looks particularly crass in the context of accompanying arguments in favour of spending money on adults who choose to "idle away their time" and including those fortunate enough to be "already living off other people’s money".
mamon 10y ago
Sorry, but isn't the premise of UBI that it is paid for everyone, including children? That mother of 3 would receive $40.000, wouldn't she ?

gizmo 10y ago

The point is when you give the same subsidies to a healthy 22 year old who lives with his parents and a single mother of three, we're dealing with one of two situations: 1) the subsidies are sufficient for both groups to do OK. This is fine in theory, but taxes would have to go up by a lot to have the minimum take care of the needy with the largest expenses. The UBI would have to be closer to 25,000 USD. If it's politically impossible to raise taxes to the level needed to let poor people live in dignity today, then what are the odds the American people sign off on the massive tax hikes needed to fund a non-destitution basic income? 2) the UBI simply isn't sufficient. Some people are getting money they don't need and other people are getting much less than they need just to survive. Every dollar that goes to the first group means there's less for those who really need it. In other words, the proposed system is a cruel dismantling of the welfare state. Raising 3 children is practically a full time job, just one that happens to be unpaid. With the UBI the minimum wage would go away, meaning that the single mother is going to make a few dollars an hour in her part time job. That will barely cover the cost of the car she needs to get to her job, and the cost of the babysitter. The suggestion that being a single mother isn't much more expensive than a being a single young adult is absurd. I really struggle to respond to this. Just think about it: a single person can share an apartment and bike everywhere, enjoy the simple bohemian lifestyle. Being a beach bum doesn't cost anything. Do side jobs and hustle whenever you need a few bucks. The single mother in contrast needs a car and a house with rooms, just to start. That's going to take a big chunk out of the 10,000. Just living nearby a school is already expensive, and not optional. And the children themselves cost money too, in a million little ways. Diapers, clothing, entertainment, food, trips to the doctor, the list is endless. I don't believe I'm misrepresenting the situation, this is just how the math works out. If the UBI means giving money to people who don't really need it then taxes must go up by a lot or the poor are getting a really raw deal.

avatarlite 10y ago
From the article: >Or consider the unemployed young man who fathers a child. Today, society is unable to make him shoulder responsibility. Under a UBI, a judge could order part of his monthly grant to be extracted for child support before he ever sees it. The lesson wouldn’t be lost on his male friends. > Or consider teenage girls from poor neighborhoods who have friends turning 21. They watch—and learn—as some of their older friends use their new monthly income to rent their own apartments, buy nice clothes or pay for tuition, while others have to use the money to pay for diapers and baby food, still living with their mothers because they need help with day care. The author seems to be proposing that child support for 3 children can/should be taken from their fathers' UBI grants. Therefore, the mother would receive a larger grant based on her number of children.
- gizmo 10y ago
  Those quotes are about enforcing responsibility and repercussions for unwise decisions, and how that functions as deterrence. Taking money away from the father is framed as punishment, the mother getting money is just a happy coincedence (remember he excludes children from the UBI and then he sketches a scenario where a dad has to lose a lawsuit before having to pay). He doesn't concede that people in some situations simply need more money to live, because that concession would be fatal. After all, if some people need more money than others then you need to do means testing (oh wait, that's what every country is already doing and the root cause of all the inefficiency he seeks to eliminate), which is the exact opposite of the UBI.
- danbruc 10y ago
  That is certainly correct in many cases but I don't think you can get around gizmo's argument in the general case. The father could not simply leave the mother but for example die in an accident. A one size fits all solution seems really problematic considering the huge differences between personal circumstances.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Assuming the father is a living US citizen whose identity and whereabouts the mother knows, of course. Either way, that doesn't really affect the argument that a BI payment supposed to be a minimum for one person to live off is unlikely to stretch to paying for the food, living space and private health insurance costs for another three, even if another parent's minimum payment is also being garnished to help. The author's arguments you've cited essentially amount to the view that children of single parents should be punished for their parents' life decisions. It looks particularly crass in the context of accompanying arguments in favour of spending money on adults who choose to "idle away their time" and including those fortunate enough to be "already living off other people’s money".

mamon 10y ago

Sorry, but isn't the premise of UBI that it is paid for everyone, including children? That mother of 3 would receive $40.000, wouldn't she ?